NIH funding rates drop

Last year, the NIH funded fewer grants than it has for any year in the last nine years, and the average grant success rate -- 20.6 percent of reviewed grant applications funded among 26 institutions -- was the second lowest since 2000.
Success rates are down from 21.8 percent in 2008 and only slightly higher than the 2006 ten-year low, when the NIH dispersed its funds out among only 20.0 percent of reviewed proposals.

By Megan Scudellari | April 15, 2010

Last year, the NIH funded fewer grants than it has for any year in the last nine years, and the average grant success rate -- 20.6 percent of reviewed grant applications funded among 26 institutions -- was the second lowest since 2000.
Success rates are down from 21.8 percent in 2008 and only slightly higher than the 2006 ten-year low, when the NIH dispersed its funds out among only 20.0 percent of reviewed proposals.

In total, 8,881 grant applications were funded last year, down from 9,460 in 2008. The NIH dished out more than $3.7 billion to grant recipients, $125 million more than in 2008. This does not include the $4.35 billion distributed among more than 12,000 projects through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Eleven of the 26 institutes' award rates fell below 20 percent in 2009, while only three reached above 30 percent. Topping the list was the National Human Genome Research Institute, funding the highest percentage of grant proposals at 34.4 percent, while the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine funded some of the lowest at only 12.1 percent.
For most institutes, however, funding success rates hovered around 20 percent:
-The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute laid out the most funds to researchers, at $477,972,977, funding 22.1 percent of grant applications received, most of them new R01s.
-The National Cancer Institute reviewed over 6,000 grant applications, far more than any other NIH Institute, and funded 1,235 of them (19.2 percent), with R01s also leading the pack.
-The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases funded 20.8 percent of R01 applications but only 11.8 percent of R21s.
-The National Institute of General Medical Sciences, one of only five institutions to fund researchers over $300 million last year, awarded 45.1 percent of renewals last year, one of the highest renewal rates across the 26 institutions. They also funded 338 new R01s, 17.7 percent of those who applied.
Access all the 2009 NIH Success Rate Data linkurl:here.;http://report.nih.gov/award/success/Success_ByIC.cfm
**__Related stories:__***linkurl: NIH gets $1 bil boost in 2011 budget;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57127/ [1st February 2010]*linkurl: Flat funding for NIH in 2009;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55450/ [23th February 2009]*linkurl: NIH stimulus to fund old grants;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55438/ [19th February 2009]

Comments

The article indicated that $3.7 billion was given out as grants. While there are obviously costs associated with managing the grants programs, as well as intramural research, this low number begs the question of where is the other ~$27 billion dollars?

To anonymous and all others questioning the money,\n\nThe rest of the money is split among many things. \n\nForemost there are all the grants that the NIH is obligated to pay. The rates and amounts listed in this article are for submitted grants (new and renewals); they do not mention the total number of grants they are funding. An R01 is generally 5 years, so in 2009 they are paying out the 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, and part of the 2004 grants depending on the start date. For a rough number take the amount spent in 2009 and multiply by 5 for the total amount paid to grantees (that brings the total to roughly $19 billion). \n\nAlso remember there are an intramural research enterprise, facility costs, and administration costs. This could easily eat into the roughly $12 billion that would remain.\n\nThus there are no missing funds.\n

I am curious. When they say 20% of reviewed grants do they mean submitted grants or are they discarding those grants that are unscored? I have noticed similar figures in the past and always wondered how you could be funding 20% with a grant payline around the 10% range. Can any one explain the discrepency?